The Passing of Patrice O'Neal.. and the Sad Effort at "Safety" by the Gutless Wonders We've Become

Patrice O'Neal died yesterday - at age 41.

He was a comedian who had a particular edge.. a point of view which didn't tolerate the fakes and phonies which have taken over are current society.

Many of you probably have no idea who Patrice was.. and I think, the best example of who Patrice O'Neal was is summed up in his appearance on Fox News one night to discuss the misguided effort to control the subject matter of humour.

Here's his spot:



Now. Is the "Angry Pirate" funny? Maybe. Maybe not. But the point is that humour is one of the last bastions of real free speech. People who can exaggerate (remember Jonathen Swift suggesting the rich eat the children of the poor?) and use satire to make a point. And when we start trying to censor humour, we start down a short path to a loss of our freedom of expression.

And the real question is, "why"?

Why do we care?

Well.. I would suggest that it is because we have become a culture of gutless wonders. We are so afraid of discomfort and "harm" of all sorts, and, frankly, dying, that we've begun to create a sort of mirthless, Orwellian society where we are sort-of safe, but devoid of being fully alive.

News flash.

We're all dying.

Every single one of us.

Some will die today. Some will die a hundred years from now - but we're all going to pass from this mortal coil eventually. So the great effort to assure that we never die, is a failed endeavor.

Yesterday I was talking about Alison Ness trying to assure that no one dies on the highways as a result of drunk driving - except she is going to fail. Trust me on this. A drunk driver is going to kill someone this week or this month and there isn't a damned thing she's going to do about it. And if it isn't a drunk driver, it will be someone on a cell phone, or eating a Big Mac, or changing a cd, or picking up the quarter they dropped on the flooor, or who just fell asleep.

And people are going to dislike you and I because of our gender, because of our race, because of our profession (did I mention that I was a lawyer?) And we can spend all sorts of time and money to try and change that reality - but we're going to fail.

What we are creating is a society of fear and dishonesty.

We are conditioned to worry about everything, from drinking drivers, to wearing seat belts, to sending our kids to school with peanut butter sandwhiches.

And, in the bargain, by seeking to censor comics and others who might offend us, we're not really changing things - we're just pushing it underground. We're avoiding honest conversations. We're making it acceptable to be a racist as long as you don't express your racism openly.

Anthony Cumia, the talk-show host who was one of the subjects of the Patrice O'Neal discussion above, has often acknowledged his own racist tendencies. He is honest and open - and is often challenged on his own show over that - and in the bargain, others who might have those same tendencies, are asked to check their own sense of reality because of that conversation.

Think about that.

You have Anthony Cumia, on Opie and Anthony talking about his own occasionally racist slant on society, and someone like Patrice O'Neal will come on his show and call him on his bullshit. And in the bargain, maybe there are a thousand or a hundred thousand somewhat racist listeners who are forced to examine, for just a moment their own point of view.

What's healthier to the cause of increasing understanding? Open and often offensive discussion on Opie and Anthony? Or watching Regis Philbin.

Anthony Cumia, in a tweet yesterday regarding Patrice O'Neal's passing summed it up perfectly:

AnthonyCumiaAnthony Cumia    Much to his chagrin, Patrice will now join the ranks of those legendary comics. I'm lucky to have known him. He transcended my racism.

20 hours ago

Alberta: Prohibition Makes a Comeback

Alison Ness and the Unbearables

Making plans for your wife or sweetheart for her birthday or Valentine's Day?  Might want to start thinking about making reservations at Burger King or Taco Bell.  If the Alberta government follows through on current plans, it may well be that the only survivors of the attack on small business will be large chain fast-food restaurants who don't sell liquor.

According to Alberta Venture magazine:

...the restaurant industry as a whole has one of the slimmest margins around. According to a Statistics Canada report released last March, pre-tax profit margins in Canada’s commercial food service industry slipped to 4% in 2007, down from 4.3% in 2006. The decrease was primarily due to a 7.4% increase in labour costs and came before the recession started eating even further into profits.

And of those restaurants feeling the pain of a struggling economy the most pain is being felt by full-service restaurants who serve wine with your dinner:

the average Canadian foodservice unit earned a pre-tax profit of just $23,450, says Statistics Canada. Full-service fine dining restaurants have the lowest profit margins in the industry at 3% in 2007. It’s the burger and taco joints that are putting more money in the bank, with an average pre-tax margin of 5.1%

So then.

Imagine the joy of struggling restaurant owners when they are told that their patrons can't have a couple glasses of wine with their dinner, because the Alberta government has decided to enter the criminal law business and outlaw drivers with alcohol levels of .05%.

The B.C. experience, when they enacted the same legislation?  A drop of profits by some 21% on average - according to the Canadian Foodservice and Restaurant Association.

Remember when Alberta was the last bastion of personal freedom in |Canada?

When the concept of personal responsibility was, essentially, a personal matter between you and your neighbor - and where the philosophy of government was, essentially, getting out of your way to allow the hard work and ingenuity of Albertans to move the Province forward.

That was then.

This is now.

The Alberta government, mired in continuing deficits, rather than encourage business in Alberta is actually taking steps to assure that business does NOT succeed, by bringing restaurants and bars to their knees.

Isn't that special?

Where Elliot Ness failed, Alison Redford will succeed.  On the backs of full-service restaurants.

News Flash: PC Party of Alberta Just Got a Little More Liberal

Coming soon to the PC Party of Alberta..?

Well.

I hate to be an "I told you so" kinda guy..  but..

It seems like just last week I was suggesting that our new Premier might be just a little bit cozy with the left side of the political spectrum, being praised along with NDP MP Megan Leslie for their visionary approach to the energy industry (Alison things a National Energy program would be a great idea).

Well.

Color me completely unsuprised by the announcement today that Liberal MLA Bridget Pastoor has crossed the floor and joined the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.

Apparently Alison Redford is quite pleased with this new addition of yet another Liberal to the PC Party of Alberta, according to the Calgary Herald.

And.

In a completely related story:

Alberta projecting $3.1 billion deficit

Finance minister raises possibility of restoring health-care premiums to raise revenue

With the province facing an estimated $3.1-billion deficit this year, largely due to declining resource and investment income, Liepert suggested his department is looking at a variety of ways to improve the books — perhaps even by restoring health-care premiums.


“With all that is going on with the global (uncertainty), it’s going to be a challenge over the next couple of years to get the budget balanced,” Liepert said. “There are some tough choices ahead.”

Really?

Tough choices like buying the PC Leadership by giving over $107 million in taxpayer dollars to already amply paid Alberta Teachers?

There is a reckoning coming in this Province, and when it hits, you might expect that "Mr. I Told You So" will be back to say...  well..   "I told you so."






According to the Edmonton Journal Article,

Allison Redford Receives Praise from the Ottawa Citizen.. Albertans should worry.

Required Equipment for Rational Decision Making...

(Doris the Uterus)

Well.

If you didn't have enough cause for concern over the recent appointment of Alison Redford as Premier of Alberta by the Alberta Teachers' Association, you might want to have a nuanced look at an article today in the Ottawa Citizen.

The headline:  Two women bring a new energy

Who are these two women who walk, hand in hand, seeking to bring a "new energy" to the recent discussions regarding the oil industry in Canada?

Why, that would be Alberta's Premier, Alison Redford, and.. wait for this..  NDP MP Megan Leslie.

No.

It's not April 1st.

The article by Susan Riley of the Ottawa Citizen praises Redford, because, among other things:

"...She  (Redford) praised Ontario's green energy innovations and urged the creation of a national strategy.."

Really?

URGING the creation of a National Energy Strategy?

Hmm..

When is the last time the Federal government decided that Alberta couldn't be trusted to manage it's own resources, and needed a national energy strategy?  Oh yeah, that would have been in 1980.

But, you may say, that wasn't a National Energy Strategy, that was a National Energy Program.

Now, how did that work out for Alberta, and in fact for the Country as a whole?

Oh yeah, it didn't.

Wide-spread bankruptcy, business loss, unemployment throughout Alberta - all so that Ottawa could take hold of our resources under the "national interest".

I remember graduating University in 1985 - and the Province was still reeling from that Ottawa power grab.  Remember Dome Petroleum?  You may have forgotten them - they were a huge player in the Canadian Oil Industry but basically went bankrupt in 1987.

All thanks to a "national energy strategy".. err..   ...program.

And who is Redford's partner in crime.. I mean, "praise".

Why that would be Megan Leslie, the NDP MP who has been in Washington lobbying against the construction of the keystone pipeline.

Isn't that special?

At the end of the article, Riley makes the comment that what we need is "less testosterone and more intelligence."

Hmm.

You know what one might suggest Alberta needs?

Less estrogen and more commitment to the interests of Albertans.  Of course that would be sexist now, wouldn't it..  but then, I'm just a stupid man. 

What do I know about anything but drinking beer and fixing cars?

SFL.. Elected to the Law Society of Alberta..!

Well.

I'm humbled.

Having about had my fill of direct political involvement, I decided my efforts might be better directed at becoming involved to a greater extent in my profession.

And so, some months ago, I put my name up for election as a Bencher with the Law Society of Alberta.

Well.

This morning I received an email with the results, and, it would appear that I convinced sufficient numbers of my peers to vote for me, as I read this morning that I have been elected.

How about them apples?

So, anyway, a very sincere thank-you to those who voted for me - and rest assured that I will continue my effort to "keep it real" in my efforts as a Bencher with the Law Society for my coming term.

I wonder if the rest of the Benchers are aware of what has been unleashed upon them..?

The Death of Superman: Do We All Feel Better Now?

First of all, a disclosure.

I love Penn State football.  I love their basic uniforms, the absence of a logo on their jerseys or helmets, their understated image of  a team which works hard for its success and relies upon a team, not an individual.

I have great admiration for Joe Paterno - even now.

But, that being stated, this post is only peripherally about Penn State and Joe Paterno - it's about something broader and more wide-spread, something that came to my mind only as I watched the piranha-like feeding frenzy throughout the mainstream and online media in reaction to the Penn State scandal.

It's about how much joy we take in seeing other people fail.

As a society we used to seek out and revere our heroes - seeking to find a beacon in our own difficult lives to urge us forward, to be more than we were. 

Now - we seek out heroes, in hopes that we can discover their own failings and their own evidence of humanity, so that we can justify being less than we could be.

And the politically-correct atmosphere of our current western culture is tailor-made for this.

The media no longer simply reports the facts - they devote hours and hours giving their own opinions of those facts.. err.. those allegations, as if they were facts - generally with a goal to being the first and the best at tearing down anyone in the public eye who dared to stand out and, by their conduct, to suggest the virtue of effort and hard work resulting in personal success.

Because, really, that's a very uncomfortable feeling.

To look in a mirror, to examine your own contribution to this world, and to make the judgment that you come up lacking.

Particularly when compared to people who have succeeded more than we have.

We see it in the Occupy movement, in their glaring hatred for anyone who has succeeded in business, when most of the occupiers would rather complain about other people's success than work to create their own.

We see it in the zeal over the alleged failings of Joe Paterno and Herman Cain of late.

We used to seek out heroes as an example to emulate, to tell ourselves that we can strive to be something more.

Somewhere, however, that changed.

At some point, we began to seek out heroes so that we could tear them down.

So that we could justify doing nothing, to tell ourselves that to strive to be something beyond our current reality is a fools errand.

We have become a society based upon schadenfreude.  Taking joy in the misfortune of others.

Which is a recipe for a culture of mediocrity.

No more Frederick Banting discovering insulin.  No more men on the moon.  No more Mother Theresa.

Is that what we want?

Will we rejoice when all the Supermen are finally dead?

Dear Occupiers, "Is this seat taken?"

Vancouver Protester Sean O'Flynn-Magee

Waiting on Stand-by for a flight to Somalia

So.  I see the Occupiers all over Canada and the U.S. continue to make a nuisance of themselves.  I came up today with the perfect answer to the problem.

Clearly they are so upset with just how horrible and unfair our capitalist system is - so, why not give them the pick of any country in the world (other than the U.S. and Canada) and give them the opportunity to give their seat up to an immigrant from their preferred country of choice.

Because, while they may think that the situation here is so unbearable that they need to stake out a public park to make their point - there are a few people who would actually be pretty happy about living here.

And it's born out by a recent Gallup Poll.

Between 2007 and 2009 people in 135 different countries around the world were polled regarding whether or not they would like to live in another country.

The results of those polls showed that roughly 700 million people would leave their country to live permanently in another country, if given the opportunity.

And where do you think those 700 million people would live, if given the chance?

Three guesses, the first one doesn't count.

The United States of America - favored destination of 24% of all applicants was far and away the most desired country of choice - some 165 million.

Second place - the great white north - Canada - favored choice of some 45 million.

Think about that.

And then consider that in the U.S.A, there are some 12 million illegal immigrants - people living under threat of deportation, people who quite often do not speak English, people who cannot apply for Employment Insurance, or other government benefits, who, because they are illegal, work for less than minimum wage, crammed into unsafe homes with others like themselves.

Because, quite simply, there is no better place on earth where the little guy has a chance to make something more of himself.

There is, without question, no other place on this earth where the opportunity exists to overcome an impoverished upbringing than Canada and the U.S.A.

That's why people are lining up in our immigration cues, why people are climbing over fences, walking across deserts at night and sitting in the rusted hulls of ships crossing the ocean to get in.

Is it perfect?  Nope.  But it's the best damned imperfect system on this earth - so much so that people will literally risk their lives to get here.

It's so obvious, that you would have to be an idiot not to see it.

Or perhaps some over-educated, lazy hipster squatter.

Someone, say, like Sean O'Flynn-Magee.

Occupy THIS

Welcome to the World of the Lawyer on the Street

Just thought I'd share something - while it may not matter much to non-lawyers, I think it typifies the attitude of the "big thinkers" in society who have all sorts of "ideas" but don't seem to care about who has to pay the cost for same.

I received an email today with an attachment from the Canadian Bar Association. 

The attachment was a document entitled "Measuring Diversity in Law Firms A Critical Tool for Achieving High Performance.  (Ironically enough, the Guide was authored by Dr. Lorraine Dyke of Carleton University - you know, the University that suggests that diversity allows them to exclude Israeli academics on campus.  The University that won't allow groups to raise money to fight illnesses that strike predominantly caucasian people). 

The suggestion is that this Guide be employed by all lawfirms to assure that they are developing a climate of social diversity in their hiring practices - which I have no objection to, in principal.  In reality, however, both the Guide and the suggested effort leave much to be desired.

A copy of the Guide can be found here.

My comments to the CBA were as follows:

Dear CBA:


Interesting Guide.

It must be nice to practice law in a firm which has such an ability to generate fees from corporate and institutional clientele that they can devote significant time and resources to assuring that they have a diverse workplace.

Our law societies, and our CBA, sadly, have become quite estranged from the reality of small firms and solo practitioners – such that they send us information such as this, and by implication, provide yet further evidence that the issues that matter to the more typical “lawyer on the street” do not matter to the CBA or our respective Law Societies. I note with no small interest that the references included in the report do not come from any lawyers that actually have to send bills to individual consumers for the bulk of their livelihood – those references coming from Davis LLP, Air Canada Corporation, Miller Thomson LLP, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP, and Canada Lands Company.

These entities all have the incredible good fortune to be able to bill their services to either the taxpayer or faceless bands of shareholders.

You know – billing files like the $313 million arrangement between Adamus Resources Limited and Endeavour mining, touted by Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP on the front page of its website.

Or files like the legal services provided in the $5 billion New Millennium Capital agreement with Tat Steel undertaken by Davis LLP, also proudly touted on their website.

Not many $5 billion files being worked on in our firm, I must admit.

Unfortunately, I am one of the great unwashed in Canada – lawyers from small firms or solo practitioners who have to consider their clients’ means when they send out a bill, and have to look their client in the eye when they ask them to pay a bill which will actually impact on their ability to perhaps feed their children or pay their mortgage. I wonder when the last time in house counsel for Air Canada had to do that?

Yes - I am a lawyer in a small firm (7 lawyers) in a small city, where the luxury of spending time on erudite and interesting discussions comes directly from our own bottom line – but, nonetheless, I have take some time out of my otherwise busy and stressful practice to offer my comments as follows:

a) Firstly, in rural Alberta, contrary to the dream world which must exist in firms like Davis LLP, Air Canada Corporation and Miller Thompson LLP, I can imagine the reaction of our staff if they were presented with a survey (as confidential as it would be) asking about religion, racial background, and sexual orientation. Of course we could, as suggested in the Guide, reduce that stress by paying for an outside firm to conduct the survey (see comment regarding small firm’s bottom line);

b) Following up on the first point, I can then imagine the stress and loss of income to our small firm resulting from a disgruntled employee now making a Human Rights complaint against our firm which they would allege resulted from the data received and the answers given (or refused to be given). I am sorry to say, but in the current legal/political climate in Canada regarding Human Rights Commissions, there is little ability to predict with any certainty what effort and what consequence might result from such a complaint – and pardon me if I throw up in my mouth just a little bit over the comforting comment in the guide that with regard to such a complaint “all require evidence of adverse consequences based on a listed ground for an action to constitute discrimination.” I would prefer, candidly, to avoid the offer of a possible ticket to the human rights circus for our firm, in favor of simply allowing our staff to keep personal matters, well, personal;

c) I note that the study only vaguely touches upon the most interesting question – which is how we achieve “diversity” without effectively asking potential job applicants, “So are you gay or transsexual?” The Guide points out that “Many human rights commissions have issued guidelines that employers refrain from asking questions related to prohibited grounds during the hiring process unless they relate to “bona fide occupational requirements”. Basically, what the Guide is telling us is that we should question our employees in order to obtain a more specific understanding of the depth of our diversity – but, at the end of the day, offers effectively that this effort is more or less window dressing because we can’t really make a concerted effort to target hiring towards certain groups whose sensitivities may not be readily apparent at hiring time (religious minorities, alternative sexual orientation);

Meanwhile, speaking as a family lawyer, we have the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court of Canada telling us that we bill too much, but that we have to conduct relatively exhaustive examination of the financial affairs of the opposing party to have a sustainable agreement (i.e. do more, for less), we have our respective law societies telling us to provide more work on a pro bono (free) basis, and we have our respective legislatures making it easier and easier for people to do their own work on a pro se (without lawyer) basis, clogging up the system, making it disadvantageous to hire lawyers in the first place when quite often Judges are put in position of being de facto opposing counsel (for free by the way).

Lovely.

When will the CBA undertake a study to comment on the burden sought to be placed on the average lawyer by ivory-tower jurists and other big thinkers who have the luxury of existing in a position which doesn’t require that they bill and collect, or don’t eat?

When will the CBA provide a report outlining the utter failure of the “access to justice effort”?

When will the CBA produce a study commenting on the practical impossibility of providing a “flexible work environment” (that is, fewer working hours) for the same pay, while at the same time, reducing the amount we charge our clients for our services?

Sadly, I and many thousands like me do not work in the rarified air of counsel at Davis LLP.

It would be nice for the CBA and for our Law Societies to perhaps, from time to time, recognize that.

Rational Advice to the Irrational "Occupiers"

Look.

I've commented that there is some point to the angst of the occupiers.

But, sadly, they are too stupid and too inept to express it properly and definitely too stupid and too naive to actually accomplish anything.

Too many of them, at heart, are anarchists or Marxists - who want to effectively end capitalism and create an all controlling government oligarchy, based upon the concept of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Note to protesters:

They tried that in the Soviet Union, and it didn't work out quite so well.  Because it assures a poor standard of living for everyone, and requires complete and total control by the state - which means a cessation of a little thing called personal liberty.

Here's some free advice to the Occupiers:

Don't try to sell Marxist dogma to the masses.  It might appeal to your cool pals down at the coffee house, wearing dark turtle necks, but it isn't going to sell to 50% of the population, let alone the "99%" you profess to speak for.

Why don't you actually target some business you feel have either most egregiously hurt the economy(say, Lehman Brothers for example) or particularly large and dominant businesses who have perhaps been so successful, that they have negatively impacted the free market (say, WalMart).

And instead of asking the government to do the heavy lifting, why don't you realize upon the true potential power of the 99% and say, "We aren't going to shop at WalMart anymore.. who's with us?"

Move your protests, perhaps, from pointless city parks (I know they are all nice and comfy and all) and move them to WalMart parking lots. 

Eventually, if WalMarts close down - people are still going to need groceries and clothes and whatnot - and perhaps, just perhaps, if you're willing to spend a few more dollars from local businesses, you might actually change the concentration of wealth in a meaningful way.  And you might create opportunities for small local businesses.

Problem is greed.

The same thing that motivates the "1%" to establish their massive wealth, also dissuades the 99% from making decisions to reallocate that wealth because, gosh, it means I might spend an extra $40 for my groceries this week.

And, gee, I would go to the corner store to get my milk, but, darn, if I go to Superstore, I can also buy a pair of blue jeans and a coffee maker.

But - there you have it.

That's how democracy and capitalism works.

At the end, we get what we want, really.

And what we deserve.

The Ultimate Irony: The 99% Have Created the Monster

Capitalism is the ultimate democracy.

Read that again.

No where else do we exercise our free agency more independently that how we choose to spend our pay cheques.

Think about the decision-making process of a consumer.

You deposit your pay cheque and then you make a decision, completely independent of any Wall Street clowns, about what you are going to do with it. 

You decide you are going to buy some groceries.

Where do you go to get them - democratic decision number 1.  Safeway, WallMart, the local farmer's market, the corner store.. it's completely up to you.

Once you arrive, now the democratic process really takes over.  What do you buy?  Doritos?  If so, what flavor?  Nacho Cheese, Buffalo Wing, Ranch, Onion Rings and Ketchup.. the choices abound.  And not so much as a soft hand on your shoulder as you vote for your favorite. 

And so it goes.  Do you buy Kraft dinner, or do you go with the generic brand of mac n' cheese.  Or do you make it from scratch yourself, and buy a bag of elbow macaroni, a block of cheddar, some milk and floor?

Note, again, no one telling you what choice you have to make. 

By the end of the shopping experience, you've made, perhaps, a hundred choices - all by your big boy self - with nary a government employee or evil corporate magnate compelling you to make any of them..

Oh sure - they market and advertise and, to some extent, brainwash you into thinking that this brand or that brand will make you happier, sexier, more fulfilled - but at the end of the day, you are a complete free agent in how you choose to spend your dollar.

And so goes virtually all of our decisions on spending our dollars - the sole exception being income tax.  That is the least democratic expenditure you make..  no control there.  The government tells you to hand over your money - and only in the most oblique way, do you have any impact on how they spend it.

How ironic, then, that the call from the "Occupiers" is for higher tax.

Because what they conveniently forget, is that massive gap between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy, is a product, for the most part, of the democratic process inherent in capitalism.

No one forced any of us to purchase the new iPhone.

And yet we did.  And Apple suddenly earns billions of dollars - and becomes part of the hated "1%".

Likewise with almost all major corporate giants - from Microsoft, to Coca-Cola, to Time-Warner, to Anheiser Busch. 

They earn billions of dollars, not because they are able to force you to buy their products, but because you CHOOSE to buy their products.

This is the great failing of the anti-corporate anarchist types.

Because while they may capture the angst and, yes, envy, of the masses that they don't have what the wealthy have - what they can't do, in any meaningful way, is convince the marchers at OWS to throw away their iPhones.

To NOT shop at WallMart.

To NOT go see the latest piece of garbage from Michael Moore, or Sandra Bullock.

To NOT, effectively, hand over their hard-earned money to Michael Vick and Ben Roethlesberger.

To NOT invest their savings in marginal return, but very safe, GIC's, and Term Deposits.

We want what we want.  And while many of us may feel a certain sense of unfairness in the wealth of corporate giants - we're not prepared to vote against them en mass with our pocket books.

And maybe we should.

And THAT is the message that these Occupy clowns aren't getting out.  Because that would require work and sacrifice. 

If you really want to benefit the small guy, if you really want to turn the tables - stop shopping at WalMart.  Go to your local grocer, to your local produce market.  Stop going out for dinner at Wendy's or McDonald's, and go to your local burger joint, or your local restaurant instead of Chili's and Tony Roma's and Olive Garden.

If you are tired of unheard of profits going to greed-heads at Goldman-Sachs - well, put your money in savings.  Make lump-sum payments on your mortgage.  Or invest in a local business that you can see and touch. 

Will it happen?

Don't hold your breath.

Because while the "99%" like to talk the talk, they aren't ever going to walk the walk. 

Certainly, some people can't afford to make those capitalist distinctions.  The difference between buying $100 worth of groceries which would cost $125.00 locally may be too painful for those at the low end of the income scale.

But WallMart isn't making their billions from low-income families.  They are making the vast majority of their money from the burgeoning middle class - who could choose to spend a little more to help the little guy - but don't.

So.

Want to change the gap between the 99% and the 1%?

Who's stopping you?